UK

The focus on re-establishing more liveable cities continues unabated. The primary problem however is that 85 years of traffic engineering revolving around the car has failed miserably. It’s time for modern thinking, and good design can help.

Historically, streets were human spaces, so why don’t we still design them in accordance with the desire lines of their citizens? The following talk, given by Mikael Colville-Andersen, makes the case for using basic design principles instead of engineering as the surest route to developing thriving, human-centred cities.

Colville-Andersen is an urban mobility expert and CEO for Copenhagenize Consulting. He is often called Denmark’s Bicycle Ambassador but has learned the hard way that this title is a dismal pick-up line in bars.

Colville-Andersen and his team advise cities and towns around the world regarding bicycle planning, infrastructure and communication strategies. He applies his marketing expertise to campaigns that focus on selling bicycle culture and bicycle transport to a mainstream audience as opposed to the existing cycling sub-cultures in particular with his famous Cycle Chic brand. Colville-Andersen gives talks around the world about bicycle culture, design, and social media.

Those who are familiar with TED talks will know that they are synonymous with quality and intelligent commentary. My favourite bit of this particular talk begins at 5:27 and considers Copenhagen’s approach to the “desire lines” of its citizens. After watching this segment, just think about how other cities around the world might be quicker to punish (rather than observe) their citizens in cases where they routinely flout the law – which approach do you suppose is better?

A lot of people hesitate over Critical Mass because they don’t really understand what it is. Although it defies definition, we’ve compiled a list of ‘frequently asked questions‘ to shed some light on the issues and hopefully attract some new riders.

Edinburgh doesn’t have a shortage of cyclists, and Critical Mass offers a superb opportunity for them to come together and celebrate their shared interests. (Photograph borrowed from Edinburgh’s Pedal on Parliament ride – probably the greatest mass bike ride in Scotland)

Cycle registration is a contentious issue, but to me it seems absurd for anyone to seriously suggest erecting such significant barriers to cycling at a time when there are too many cars on the roads and the nation’s health is so poor.

Some politicians seem to be under the impression that cyclists are anarchists who disregard the rules and their own safety for no particular reason. Although I don’t condone red-light jumping and pavement cycling (two of the most controversial issues), there are strong arguments and hard data in support of the fact that such behaviours are sometimes justified in light of their being the safest options at certain junctions. This being the case, what is perceived as the ‘bad behaviour’ of cyclists is symptomatic of the poor conditions that British bike riders have to put up; not only do we lack the strict liability laws employed to protect vulnerable road users across Europe, but our cycling infrastructure amounts to little more than inconsistent and unenforced dabs of paint.

If politicians like Nikki Sinclaire want people on bikes to behave better then maybe they should spend more time learning about how successful cycling cultures work and less time proposing preposterous new rules that do nothing to protect cyclists whatsoever.

Cycling is such a part of the lifestyle in The Netherlands that most Dutch people don’t even think of themselves as ‘cyclists’.

Indeed, cycling is a perfectly normal activity, and so it is about time that we started treating it as such. This article from the Guardian’s bike blog describes how Britain’s cycling minister wants to see more ‘everyday’ riders on the road – the kind who have baskets on their bikes and just pootle around in normal clothes (i.e. not the usual lycra brigade).

It’s a nice idea, certainly, but I would like to highlight the key issue raised around of the middle of the piece:

“Campaigners […] point out that making cycling an everyday activity for people of all inclinations and ages generally requires years of investment in segregated cycle lanes, bike-safe junctions and other infrastructure.”

Without the right infrastructure to protect them, ‘everyday’ riders would be like lambs for the slaughter in cities like London. The minister for cycling clearly has his work cut out for him if his vision is to be realised.

Why should it be weird that cycling is normal?

I realise that this picture is totally unrelated to the post, I just wanted to share it with you because it’s awesome

2013 saw many articles written under titles referring to the ‘dangers of cycling’. A few random examples can be found here, here, here, and here. This one even talks about the ‘terrors’ faced by cyclists on the road.

Indeed, cycling can be a dangerous activity, but this is not because cycling itself is dangerous…

For instance, it isn’t dangerous to cycle without a helmet

It isn’t dangerous to cycle without hi-viz

It isn’t dangerous to cycle with a passenger…

…no matter what age you are!

Even a couple of passengers (and a suitcase) is no big deal

Cycling with kids isn’t dangerous either

and it isn’t dangerous to cycle with an umbrella

It certainly isn’t dangerous to cycle next to your friends

Even four-legged friends are safe to ride with.

Sometimes up front…

…or alongside

Whether you’re a little bit older…

Gustaf Håkansso

…or a little younger

…cycling itself is not a dangerous activity.

What these photographs illustrate is how the physical environment affects the relative danger of riding a bike. Many of the pictures also show how good infrastructure is the key factor in determining whether or not cycling is actually safe.

As we move into 2014, I am hopeful that governing bodies in the UK (and elsewhere, for that matter) pick up on the merits of cycling and do what is needed to protect people who ride bikes. At present (and from my perspective), city dwellers face an unappealing trilemma when deciding upon transportation; they can either:

1. Contribute to the city’s pollution and congestion by paying through the nose for a car (+driving licence/insurance/MOT/VED/petrol/parking etc.).
2. Pay to take crowded/crappy (and notoriously unreliable) public transport.
3. Ride a bike but risk their lives by sharing the road with heavy/powerful/fast moving motor vehicles.

If a person is able to ride a bike (i.e. if their health permits it), then it should be in everybody’s interest to support them. Biker riders take up less space on the roads, and so there is less congestion for everyone else; they are not pumping out pollution into the air that we all have to breath; they are exercising their bodies and so easing pressure on an NHS that is currently strained by an obesity epidemic; they aren’t damaging the roads to nearly the same degree that other vehicles do (thus saving tax-payers money); they don’t run people over (and if they do, injuries are usually minor); and last but not least, motor-vehicle dominated cities are noisy and unpleasant places, and so bikes offer a quiet and civilised remedy to this.

I think that cycling is brilliant, not just for the bike rider but for the world. I intend to keep up the pace this year with my campaigning, and I hope to keep you updated with any developments/innovations that might be of interest.

Transport Minister Stephen Hammond has announced that new low-level traffic lights for cyclists have been authorised for use following safety trials.

More than 80% of cyclists favoured the use of low-level signals during the track-based trials of the system, which works by repeating the signal displayed on main traffic lights at the eye level of cyclists.

The clearance means that Transport for London (TfL) can now install the lights at Bow Roundabout – the first time the lights have been used in the UK.

Initially the system will be piloted at Bow but the Department for Transport (DfT) is working with TfL to extend it to a further 11 sites in London.

The lights will give cyclists improved, clearer signals to ensure they have the information they need at the junction. Research is currently underway that will give DfT the evidence to consider approving the use of these lights to provide an “early start” for cyclists.

Leon Daniels, managing director of surface transport at TfL said:

“Low level cycle signals are common place in certain parts of Europe and we are keen to make them common place in London. These new signals, which will be a further improvement to the innovative traffic signals at Bow, will provide cyclists with a better eye-level view as to which stage the traffic signals are at.

Working closely with the Department for Transport, we will work to have these on-street during January 2014, and should the technology prove to be successful, further trials will be carried out across London throughout 2014.”

Bike-only traffic lights work so well in The Netherlands that most cyclists actually obey them!

The reason why it is good to have separate lights for cyclists is that they can be used to give people on bikes a head start before the rest of the traffic.

The system that currently operates in the UK uses an ‘Advanced Stop Line‘ (ASL) which is also known as a ‘bike box’. The idea is that there is a designated area (usually painted red) at the head of the traffic queue into which bicycles can filter and then get ahead of motorised vehicles. The problem with this set up though is that the bike box is rarely respected and almost never enforced by traffic police. Motorists aren’t informed about the penalties of driving into this box under a red light, and so it is often ignored.

Driver inside an ASL, does she even know it’s there? In her defence, the ASL is such a rubbish attempt at cycling infrastructure that I’m hard;y surprised that it is ignored.This City of Edinburgh minicab driver pulled in front of me and my girlfriend as we were waiting in the ASL. The car to the right of the picture takes a cue from the taxi driver and edges into the bike box as well. The fact that the box’s red paint has been eroded hardly helps.

Whenever I tell people about my dream of having some decent cycling infrastructure in the UK, I am frequently met with the same point about there not being enough space on British roads. The general feeling is that roads are already too narrow, and that there simply isn’t any room to accommodate the type of segregated cycle lanes that work so well on the continent.

In opposition to this, I would like to present you with a group of photos taken from Google Streetview. In the left column you have shots of roads/junctions in the UK, and in the right column you have almost identical shots of places in The Netherlands. The point of the side-by-side comparison is to show how space is used differently, and how the Dutch so sensibly choose to separate pedestrians and cyclists from cars and HGVs. The streets are so similar that they could almost be before and after photos…

In each case, the cycling provision in the UK is rubbish or non-existent, while that provided on a similar street in The Netherlands offers a far superior cycling experience. Of course, if cycle lanes were better then more people would cycle, and if more people were riding bikes then there would be fewer cars on the road and so less congestion and less pollution. Everyone benefits, right?

The following video explains how the Dutch got their cycle paths, and how their cities made the transition from being car-centric to being more bicycle friendly.
What the Dutch have achieved is truly remarkable, and this is why I always hold them up as the best example for the UK to follow. They are the only country in the world able to boast the fact that more than a quarter of all their journeys are made by bike, and it would be my dream come true if we could achieve this feat in the UK.